Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 13, 2014 4:30pm-5:01pm PST

4:30 pm
were placed in the 19th century. this is being advertised as the latest telecommunications technology by at&t and dpw. it demonstrates that at&t's technology is not the best. this is why they are installing the 26 boxes. as you can see from the overhead the addition of the new boxes is also in addition to the ones they already have. as one of the leading technologies in the world, san francisco should also lead in internet connecticut like kansas city. we need a project to install the fiber network. i'm glad you are starting to look at this. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank
4:31 pm
you very much. next speaker. >> hi. my name is karen chang and i live in the sunset. this is a model for private property, here we are talking about our streets used by residents and distances much greater. residents and 300 feet is not a notification by employing this rule, notification to the public is under cut and opposition will be less. we've also talked about the process around proposing alternative sites that meet the criteria. this is an insidious way of letting neighbors choose the locations
4:32 pm
for the sf. this is not only a repugnant consequence of regulation but a waste of time. the fact is that no one wants this in front of their house. the service they claim they did did not ask people if they would accept a box in fronted of their house to get that service. if the community does not offer and alternative site. this process is unacceptable and chooses which neighbor to punish with sf m. requiring this is a conflict. we've also talked about the community opposition. i would like to request that the public be
4:33 pm
provided a clear definition of this significant opposition to oppose. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is kathleen. the dpw order obviously express i am propriety. we received a construction notice. this was withdrawn by at&t in a hearing because they placed the box in violation of item 3 exhibit b of the order. 6 months later, april 2012 we received a second notice of an alternate site.
4:34 pm
they didn't contact us for 7 months. we presented objections and with were not contacted until september 2012 stating that a hearing officer denied the permit but the director over turned the hearing officer's recommendation. contrary to the order has led to this travesty. we went to the dpw counter and the clerk said to look at the website and ask about procedures and we contacted mr. quan at dp w and that was not answered. we were asked to use the sunshine ordinance which we invoked no less than nine times to get the information we needed. we logged the appeal to $300 to ask to meet with our supervise.
4:35 pm
she arranged a meeting with at&t. the next meeting was us asking them to please provide incentives and look at private property owners which is something they should have done to begin with. they ignored the incentives suggestions and we can only assumed they wro it to property owners. we learned this was not successful. >> thank you very much. for anyone, you can always submit a submissions into record. next speaker, please.
4:36 pm
>> my name is thomas. i live at 2200 colcan street. i'm in strong opposition to the boxes and the dpw process. our objection is where they would like to place this device. i would also like to speak from the architect in having practice, i'm very familiar with code language. dpw ordered 11566 which is a very complicated regulation which i have concluded with my study has been very hastily written. in my effort to write this problem we had this meeting in november. at this meeting, mr.
4:37 pm
julian chang said that at&t see's this problem as a three-legged stool. it is my understanding right now that at&t has rescinded this pledge. this is a grave unfortunate event. i have assembled a group of local distinguished design professionals who have designed underground volts for electrical high voltage systems and telecommunications equipment with basements below sea level. if these facilities construct these with public right of way can meet this challenge like pg & e has, so can at&t. on the screen is our photographs of how pg & e has better understood the needs of san francisco. we would like to know if the city is holding at&t to a lesser standard compared to pg & e. on august 20th of this year in a public
4:38 pm
meeting with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods, we recorded the following statements by at&t. when at&t was asked that -- >> my name is gary wise. i'm also the treasurer of the development and on the planning land use committee. when during the ceqa hearing in 2011, the size of the boxes was 51 inches wide. they have grown to 59 1/2 inches. with the ballards on
4:39 pm
either side. dpw requirements be state the boxes be placed on the curb which means the walker's and baby karjs carriages exit the car. on the meetings with neighbor associations residents imply there is an option to have or not to have the boxes installed. the only thing gained by the meeting is that the box could be relocated down the street. usually in front of a resident -- renters residence. of the ones approved i know of one disapproved on sanchez street. it was moved. as far as agreeing goes there
4:40 pm
is no possibility of putting it because there is kab net door on either side. i think that whole argument is bogus. thank you very much. >> i appreciate the process for at&t. i have two comments. the first comment provided by at&t is incomplete. the city law does require they place these boxes on private property and this is very similar to what comcast does. i will tell you what comcast provides which offers voice internet and video as does at&t product. what they provide on information that i
4:41 pm
received was the side of the private citizens they approach. i could not retrieve under a sunshine request where the amounts they offer to those citizens on those boxes on the private property. i point this out because based on this as they said before and $100 per month. that's about $600,000 per year. that would be $30,000 per year. i'm pretty sure you would find a local resident who would have a box go on their property for $30,000 a year. the second point i want to point out, actually i will leave it at that.
4:42 pm
>> good afternoon supervisors. i have not had to contend with any new installation of a box. i and everyone else live on a daily to try to submit the daily existing boxes. that the boxes be automatically painted every week. i religiously use my 311 app to record the graffiti on the 3 boxes on my street on third and the turn around for the abatement is very good and the following week i have to report it again because it's painted again. why don't we take the on us off and paint it every week.
4:43 pm
supervisor scott weiner: thank you. let me call the next batch. thank you for the opportunity. i have a word called deception. it's a location at 17th street at the
4:44 pm
upper market area. there is already an existing box. in that panel i got a note for installation on another box. strangely enough, the photo did not show that box just a few feet away. that box is already there and they want to put one in and they showed it over here without that box included in the picture. if that isn't deception; it may not be a mortal sin but it looks like deception to me. i hope you will somehow over turn or correct this by not allowing these boxes. thank you very much.
4:45 pm
>> hi. my name is steve walker. there is a box near me about 100 feet away. i'm not here because of this particular box but to ask my supervisor's presence to hold off on the proceeding. we have seen enough evidence of the fact that they are not going through process they are supposed to be going through. that said, i have an excellent solution. i am a telecommunication expert with 24 years experience. undergrounding these boxes is easy. i have already recommended to dpw. they asked me for information with an estimate . $15,000 per box. it's very simple to do. i have
4:46 pm
been able to do this many times in my career. this telecommunications technology -- is nothing different. it's no more water sensitive to power than pg & e. there is nothing special about this. i'm in favor of the technology and favor of at&t putting in u verse in, but not putting in boxes above ground. supervisor scott weiner: thank you, next speaker.
4:47 pm
>> i have lived in this area for 20 years. this box has been here and it is a mess. it's been like that ever since i can remember. i checked it this morning, it belongs to comcast. we are not just talking about at&t. we are talking about a lot of other issues as well. it's something the city has failed to address. i'm talking about this street day after day, comcast, water department, you name it. no one has ever ever apparently made any effort to get this problem corrected. it's only wire closed. it's not locked. a child can get their hands inside there. it's only 3 feet from a comcast underground box. given the city's lack of
4:48 pm
monitoring success, we have all been notified that we have to repair our sidewalks, anything more than a quarter inch has to be repaired. add a lid on them and they get cockeyed. they produce a significant threat. i have tripped on them. they are horrible for pedestrians and we still allow these things to progress. another thing, hill has underground facility. that
4:49 pm
was done -- >> it's the north west corn er of turney and union street. supervisor scott weiner: when was the photo taken? >> yesterday. >> we appreciate that. maybe dpw can take a look at that cabinet. it's in poor shape. next speaker. >> hello, i live down the street from where one of these boxes is going. at 13001 new hampshire and frankly i can care less. it's in a fine spot, fine if a box is there. what i want is for communities to have control of what these things
4:50 pm
look like. there is no reason that there can't be art on these boxes. of course with these at&t boxes there is the real reason which is the warranty and the anti-graffiti and obviously this is something that needed to be addressed a long time ago. i think there is a better system for making sure that we have art on these boxes. maybe it looks like a block adopting a box themselves. i would be happy to adopt the box down the street. i would be out there painting it there once a week. it would be great. as is, it's just a blank canvas and i would tag it myself. i wouldn't but i would think about it especially as an artist. yeah, let's adopt boxes and figure out another way. thank you. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. mr. wilson. before you go
4:51 pm
let me call the final batch of cards that i have. these are all the cards i have. >> my name is bill wilson. as you know i'm the president of the neighborhood association. i wanted to speak to process. because i have learned a lot today. mainly because what is described today isn't exactly what happened in our case. mr. blake man did come to our neighborhood association. i'm not exactly sure when, but it had to have been at least 4 years ago because presidential terms are 2 years and we've
4:52 pm
been through at least two more presidents since i was president. he came, he spoke, he promised we would hear from him and we never have although the boxes are already sprouting in our neighborhood. one of the things i learned today according to the guideline 18 the facility shall not be in front of boundaries or open space. now i understand also hearing further that that was because when it was originally proposed the original proposal was it couldn't have hit the park but evidently when they did a walk around a box walk, they decided to -- nobody actually that might be a convenient place to put it but nobody knows where it didn't both everybody. so what i'm
4:53 pm
saying is we can move this box not out of the neighborhood but if we can find a place in finding solutions. we are in a neighborhood where we have done graffiti clean up and we have the people there that are volunteering. >> my name is mario -- i want to thank you to give the people of san francisco to express an opportunity of outrage. we've all heard of this, the at&t versus st city of san
4:54 pm
francisco. this is a deliberate strategy that at&t has employed to mislead and bully the citizens and ownes of san francisco. we are given numbers, hundreds of people want this, boxes. but what we care about is that the owner, the property owner wants that box in front of his house. the other people surrounding that property. do they want it? we speak about this one law that allows the right of way. we ask you. the guidelines are not proper. dpw guidelines as they are to date are not proper. we
4:55 pm
have seen and heard enough today to understand that. let's take action. i'm proposing that we put this on the ballots. that the citizens of san francisco have a right to say no to this ugliness. thank you so much. i appreciate it. supervisor scott weiner: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i live on randall street on supervisor wiener's district. i live on this property and the so-called box walk to the dpw hearing and we were one of the three as far as i can tell, we are one of the three that have been an appealed by at&t that were actually over turned by dpw and the director of dpw and the director in their pronouncement
4:56 pm
suggested that at&t come back and look at more alternatives. although it was hinted today, i don't know what their response was. they said they filed a legal challenge by an attorney in chicago that said the director of dpw does not have the authority to go back and work with the neighbors. essentially filed a legal technique -- technicality, they filed a legal technicality. did that work with the neighbors? i don't understand that at all. how in the world can they get over that. at the end of the day the whole thing is a pretense anyway that they are working with dpw and working with neighbors. now they have come out and said when you are finally working through process we have at least one got a
4:57 pm
hearing and said we are not going back to doing it again. why have those hearings in the first place? i don't understand. thank you.a >> what they call customer service is a joke. it's just a terrible company. so i oppose it on those grounds.
4:58 pm
practically but anyone else would have the benefit of our public infrastructure of what it should be unacceptable business citizen. i feel that at&t has not been. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is kathleen courtney for the housing zone community association. i like many people that have spoken to you before today appear before the board of supervisors on a lot of different issues having to do with transportation, housing, zoning, traffic areas. telecommunications is something that is really causing a lot of
4:59 pm
difficulty. we are your constituents. we elected you to take care of this city for us. we are here because we live here and we are concerned about this city and we want to make sure that it works for us and everybody here. this is not working. it was a mistake to permit the installation of these boxes. it's time to remedy that mistake. tough decision, who else do we look to but you and the full board to address this situation. all of the hundreds of people that have been here today are here not baby sitting grandchildren, not on their jobs, not helping the soup kitchens, but here because we care about this city and called to your attention,
5:00 pm
this is your job. supervisor wiener you have helped our neighborhood telecommunications situation. this is going to require a new way of looking at it. i call to your attention at an at&t is not build for graffiti clean up. dpw acknowledged that several weeks ago at a hearing.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on